Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to encourage the construction of electric transmission lines. One of the biggest energy problems our country faces is a lack of electric transmission capacity. Recently, my home State of Wyoming joined forces with Utah, Nevada, and California in a partnership to create a new transmission line--the Frontier Line--to send coal-generated electricity to the West Coast. Demand for electricity in the West has grown by 60 percent in the last two decades, while transmission capacity has grown by only 20 percent. But ours is certainly not the only region affected. Energy production and distribution is a serious issue affecting all Americans. From our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, to limited refining capacity and distribution ability, never mind development of non- traditional fuels, we need to get our energy house in order. I have long-favored a comprehensive energy policy and will continue to champion that cause because it is badly needed and the right thing to do. One piece of any energy policy needs to be providing for electric transmission capacity. If we're producing a surplus in one area of the country but can't convey it to other areas that need it, it doesn't do anyone any good. The bill I introduce today will help alleviate the problem by making it less expensive to invest in electric transmission lines that we badly need. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to encourage the construction of electric transmission lines. One of the biggest energy problems our country faces is a lack of electric transmission capacity. Recently, my home State of Wyoming joined forces with Utah, Nevada, and California in a partnership to create a new transmission line--the Frontier Line--to send coal-generated electricity to the West Coast. Demand for electricity in the West has grown by 60 percent in the last two decades, while transmission capacity has grown by only 20 percent. But ours is certainly not the only region affected. Energy production and distribution is a serious issue affecting all Americans. From our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, to limited refining capacity and distribution ability, never mind development of non- traditional fuels, we need to get our energy house in order. I have long-favored a comprehensive energy policy and will continue to champion that cause because it is badly needed and the right thing to do. One piece of any energy policy needs to be providing for electric transmission capacity. If we're producing a surplus in one area of the country but can't convey it to other areas that need it, it doesn't do anyone any good. The bill I introduce today will help alleviate the problem by making it less expensive to invest in electric transmission lines that we badly need. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2005'' with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2005'' permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today-- compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionally higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. Providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2005'' will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the State. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2005'' with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2005'' permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today-- compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionally higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. Providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2005'' will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the State. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I will briefly tell of my interest and support for this idea. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. This is an issue we have struggled over the last couple of years. Certainly it is not the overall remedy to our whole struggle on immigration. However, this is something we do need to do now that will last in the meantime while we work on the other. Each of us who has spoken has a little different role to play in our home States with regard to this issue. In Wyoming, it is primarily the summer season, travel and vacations, Jackson Hole, WY, and other places where this has been a very important part of providing services there. Last year, of course, we were caught up in the 66,000-worker limitation, and it was kind of unfortunate for us because, as I said, it was the summer season, and therefore, the applications didn't get in as quickly as they did in some other places where their seasons started earlier. By the time our folks applied, there were no vacancies. I am for an overhaul of immigration. When we have the needs and we want people to be able to legally come to this country, whether it is for a short while, whether it is for a longer while, come legally, I am one who thinks illegal is illegal and we shouldn't have it that way. We have to look at the demands and then find a relatively simple way to work through it; otherwise, people tend to try to ignore it and go around, so that doesn't work. These small businesses are in need of some relief. They cannot find workers to do these jobs. The Labor Department certifies there is indeed a labor shortage in this case and they look to willing workers. The Mikulski amendment is quite simple, as has been explained. It doesn't count workers to the cap of 66,000 who have participated in the H-2B program during the past 3 years. It separates the allocation to two 6-month batches 2-year temporary relief. It collects new fees for fraud prevention and detection so folks who process the applications have the skills and tools to identify fraud. We need to make these changes. I understand the difficulty with the bill that is on the floor. I think the resolution is coming clear so we can deal with some of these issues and leave the larger, longer term solutions to another time. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I look forward to a very positive vote on this issue.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit unfair government competition with the private sector. Throughout my career in public office, I have always taken the position that government should not compete unfairly with American small businesses. If a function or product is available in the private sector, then that should be the first avenue of choice as opposed to having that function provided by government. For several years now, Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a government entity with the purpose of keeping prisoners busy while serving their sentences, has been providing a growing variety of products and services to both the Federal Government and the private sector. Currently, FPI employs approximately 21,000 Federal prisoners or roughly 12 percent of a population of 174,000. These prisoners are responsible for producing a diverse range of products for FPI, ranging from office furniture to clothing, as well as providing a variety of services, including telemarketing. The remaining Federal prisoners who work do so in and around Federal prisons. Through its status as a sole provider of certain goods to the Federal Government, FPI has effectively blocked private sector businesses from having a chance to provide products, even though they may be able to provide a better product in a more cost effective and efficient manner. This situation is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer and is blatantly unfair to American small businesses across the country. Along with Senators Grassley and Stabenow, Senator Levin and I propose to enact thorough and lasting reforms to Federal Prison Industries that would ensure that they no longer compete unfairly with private sector small businesses. We have already taken steps to remedy the situation. In last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill, language was included that prohibited funding for sole source products from FPI and subjected such procurements to follow the competitive requirements set out in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations. However, there are questions as to whether the mandatory sourcing requirement still remains under these regulations. Our bill makes it very clear to Federal Managers and Federal Prison Industries that contracting officers are to use competitive procedures for the procurement of products and services. This approach allows federal agencies to select FPI for contracts if, as a result of a competitive process, FPI can meet that particular agency's requirements and the product or service is the best value offered at a fair and reasonable price. By removing FPI's status as the sole provider and subjecting procurement to competition, the above outlined provision in our bill places the control of government procurement in the hands of contracting officers and allows them to pursue the most cost effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. While we believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. As FPI continues to expand its reach into providing services, the low costs of inmate labor is undercutting private sector businesses that provide similar services. The result is an unfair advantage for FPI. While allowing for the conclusion of current contracts, this bill also looks to limit services provided by inmates that compete with the private sector in interstate commerce. Additionally, the bill prohibits FPI from production of goods or services in which an inmate would have access to classified or sensitive data. We support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. But FPI should not be placed in a position of advantage when providing goods to the federal government, and these activities should not unfairly compete with services already provided in the private sector. However, I recognize that there may be cases in which a particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration of a particular prison. To deal with these exceptions, a provision is included that allows the Attorney General to grant a waiver to these reform measures in certain cases. In addition to bringing a halt to unfair business practices with the private sector, this bill allows for FPI to search for other means to keep prisoners working that do not impact the employment of individuals in the private sector. There is a need to keep inmates busy, and this legislation addresses further work opportunities though public service activities and cooperation with charitable organizations. Additionally, the bill recognizes the need for further avenues of rehabilitation and directs the Federal Bureau of Prisons to establish an Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and Training Program for inmates. I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts our bill will save taxpayer dollars. Through healthy competition with the private sector for procurement contracts, FPI will be forced to look internally for ways to improve its own effectiveness and efficiency. The reform of Federal Prison Industries will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also in preserving jobs for law abiding Americans in the private sector who work in small businesses. And the most important effect will be the better use of tax dollars. The American taxpayer is the one who will benefit most from this legislation. A similar version of our bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, and reform measures have passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives. Our bill has the support of small business groups from across the country, as well as organized labor. Clearly, reforming the way Federal Prison Industries does business is an issue that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. I believe this bill provides that reform. I would ask my colleagues to look at this legislation and consider giving it their support.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit unfair government competition with the private sector. Throughout my career in public office, I have always taken the position that government should not compete unfairly with American small businesses. If a function or product is available in the private sector, then that should be the first avenue of choice as opposed to having that function provided by government. For several years now, Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a government entity with the purpose of keeping prisoners busy while serving their sentences, has been providing a growing variety of products and services to both the Federal Government and the private sector. Currently, FPI employs approximately 21,000 Federal prisoners or roughly 12 percent of a population of 174,000. These prisoners are responsible for producing a diverse range of products for FPI, ranging from office furniture to clothing, as well as providing a variety of services, including telemarketing. The remaining Federal prisoners who work do so in and around Federal prisons. Through its status as a sole provider of certain goods to the Federal Government, FPI has effectively blocked private sector businesses from having a chance to provide products, even though they may be able to provide a better product in a more cost effective and efficient manner. This situation is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer and is blatantly unfair to American small businesses across the country. Along with Senators Grassley and Stabenow, Senator Levin and I propose to enact thorough and lasting reforms to Federal Prison Industries that would ensure that they no longer compete unfairly with private sector small businesses. We have already taken steps to remedy the situation. In last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill, language was included that prohibited funding for sole source products from FPI and subjected such procurements to follow the competitive requirements set out in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations. However, there are questions as to whether the mandatory sourcing requirement still remains under these regulations. Our bill makes it very clear to Federal Managers and Federal Prison Industries that contracting officers are to use competitive procedures for the procurement of products and services. This approach allows federal agencies to select FPI for contracts if, as a result of a competitive process, FPI can meet that particular agency's requirements and the product or service is the best value offered at a fair and reasonable price. By removing FPI's status as the sole provider and subjecting procurement to competition, the above outlined provision in our bill places the control of government procurement in the hands of contracting officers and allows them to pursue the most cost effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. While we believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. As FPI continues to expand its reach into providing services, the low costs of inmate labor is undercutting private sector businesses that provide similar services. The result is an unfair advantage for FPI. While allowing for the conclusion of current contracts, this bill also looks to limit services provided by inmates that compete with the private sector in interstate commerce. Additionally, the bill prohibits FPI from production of goods or services in which an inmate would have access to classified or sensitive data. We support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. But FPI should not be placed in a position of advantage when providing goods to the federal government, and these activities should not unfairly compete with services already provided in the private sector. However, I recognize that there may be cases in which a particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration of a particular prison. To deal with these exceptions, a provision is included that allows the Attorney General to grant a waiver to these reform measures in certain cases. In addition to bringing a halt to unfair business practices with the private sector, this bill allows for FPI to search for other means to keep prisoners working that do not impact the employment of individuals in the private sector. There is a need to keep inmates busy, and this legislation addresses further work opportunities though public service activities and cooperation with charitable organizations. Additionally, the bill recognizes the need for further avenues of rehabilitation and directs the Federal Bureau of Prisons to establish an Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and Training Program for inmates. I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts our bill will save taxpayer dollars. Through healthy competition with the private sector for procurement contracts, FPI will be forced to look internally for ways to improve its own effectiveness and efficiency. The reform of Federal Prison Industries will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also in preserving jobs for law abiding Americans in the private sector who work in small businesses. And the most important effect will be the better use of tax dollars. The American taxpayer is the one who will benefit most from this legislation. A similar version of our bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, and reform measures have passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives. Our bill has the support of small business groups from across the country, as well as organized labor. Clearly, reforming the way Federal Prison Industries does business is an issue that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. I believe this bill provides that reform. I would ask my colleagues to look at this legislation and consider giving it their support.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know we have a lot of things on our minds with some distractions, of course, but I will talk just a moment about some of the things I believe we ought to have as priorities. We need to establish our priorities so that we can work on the things we collectively believe have the most impact and should really be acted upon. Obviously, there are all kinds of ideas among us, and as we talk to people who come to see us and our people at home, why, there are a million things, but there are some that seem to be in need of consideration more quickly. One of them is energy. We have talked about having an energy policy now for several years. The evidence now is even stronger that we need an energy policy which gives us some kind of insight as to where we need to be in 10 or 15 years so that as we approach the problems, we can discover the things it takes to attain those goals. Our energy policy has always been a broad policy, as it should be. It has been a policy that talks about conservation, efficiency, alternative sources, renewables, as well as domestic production. Certainly, one of the things that is most important, that the administration and the President has pushed, is to do some work to make sure coal fits into the environment satisfactorily. Coal is our largest fossil fuel, and we ought to be using coal for electric generation rather than some things other than coal, such as gas. Almost all of the generation plants over the last 20 years have been gas, largely because it is more economical to build a smaller plant closer to the market with gas than coal. So not only do we need to do something about the carbon and the exhaust from coal, but we also have to do something about transmission so that we can economically create electricity at the mine mouth and get it through our transmission system to the market. We passed a highway bill a number of years ago, and we have never been able to get it completely passed, so we have just passed on the old one. It is certainly more than past time to get a highway bill. There is probably nothing that has more impact on our economy, creates more jobs, and allows for other things to happen in the economy than highways. We certainly need to do that. Additionally, one of the things that becomes clear, and even more clear as we spend time on Social Security, which we should, is personal savings accounts that people can have for themselves. As I have gone about talking about Social Security, I have always tried to remind folks that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement program. It is a supplement. It is a supplement to the retirement programs that we put together. There are a number of ways, of course, where there are incentives for savings, whether they be retirement programs or 401(k)s in which the employers participate. Now we have a potential for savings that can be spent earlier than retirement, that could be used for almost anything. One of the real issues is to have medical savings accounts so that we can buy cheaper insurance policies with a higher deductible and, therefore, have some money to pay for that. There is nothing, perhaps, more important than to get ourselves into a position of people preparing for their own retirement. This Social Security discussion has shown basically what young people could do by putting aside a relatively small amount of money every month and having it earn interest for them. One of the things I recognize is a little bit regional is the Endangered Species Act. It has been in place for a very long time. In my judgment, it has not been as effective as it could be. I am not for doing away with the Endangered Species Act, but we have roughly 1,300 species listed as endangered and have only recovered about a dozen. So the emphasis has been in the wrong place. We are going to have an opportunity to be able to do that, and it has great impact in many cases. It is kind of used as a land management tool so that we lose the multiple-use aspect of public and even private lands because of endangered species. There are a lot of things I think we ought to be doing. Finally, it seems to me that we ought to have a system that takes a look at programs after they have been in place 10 years, or whatever-- after they have been there for a while. We should restudy those programs, reanalyze those programs to see if, indeed, the need for them is still what it was when they started; to see if they could be made more efficient after 10 years or, indeed, if they don't need to be there anymore. I know it is very difficult. There gets to be a support group that forms around all the programs that are funded, of course. It becomes difficult to change. But it is too bad, when we think about it, to pass programs that are spending Federal money and have them out there when there is no longer any need for them or when the time has come where something different needs to be done. I am hopeful we can get something done. I am thinking about putting something in bill form that will provide a review or oversight of programs that are in place to see if they are still important, to see if they are still being done efficiently, and to see if they could be done a better way or, indeed, need to be done at all. These are some of the things I think are very important. I hope we try to set some priorities. I understand out of 100 people there are going to be many different ideas, but that is part of our challenge, to put 100 people together and decide what are the five most important issues that impact this country and impact our States. I hope we can do that and I look forward to that opportunity.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to review management and planning issues for the National Mall, including the history of development, security projects and other planned construction, and future development plans. The hearing will be held on Tuesday April 12th, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirkesn Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Brian Carlstrom at (202) 224-6293. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution designating July 23, 2005, and July 26, 2006, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy.'' Although cowboys are typically characterized as young, single men, those of us who come from the West know that cowboys come in any age, race, marital status, and gender. One 19th-century definition described ``cowboy'' as ``anybody with guts and a horse.'' I personally believe trying to define a cowboy is like trying to rope the wind, but you certainly recognize one when you see them. The Cowboy played a significant role in American history, specifically in establishing the American West. After the Civil War, there was an acute shortage of beef in the northern States. Western ranchers were burdened with an abundance of cattle and no railroads on which to ship them to market. Realizing the immense profit to be made, these cattlemen looked for the nearest railheads. Thus, began the era of the long cattle drive and the Cowboy. As a result of these drives, cow towns sprung up at cattle shipping points. These areas began to grow and thrive as western communities. Even after the cattle drive era passed, many cow towns remained solid business and farming communities. Many remain so to this day. The Cowboy continues to impact America through our economy and culture. Currently, there are approximately 800,000 ranchers conducting business in every State. These folks contribute to the economic well being of nearly every county in the Nation. Every 1 dollar in cattle sales generates about 5 dollars in additional U.S. business activity. Outside of business, cowboys also contribute significantly to humanitarian causes. The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association's activities alone raise millions of dollars for local and national charities each year. Culturally, Americans have always idolized cowboys and their way of life. Most of us have fond memories of playing cowboys and outlaws, hearing stories of Buffalo Bill Cody's famous Wild West Show, or watching cowboy icons such as Roy Rogers, Dale Evans, Gene Autry and John Wayne. Western publications, music, television shows, movies and sporting events remain as abundant and popular as ever. In fact, rodeo, a sport which developed from the skills cowboys needed in their daily routine, is the sixth most watched sport in America. Our country looks to cowboys as role models because we admire their esteemed and enduring code of conduct. Gene Autry's Cowboy Code does a nice job of illustrating the way a cowboy chooses to live. Cowboys are honest; they do not go back on their word. They have integrity and courage in the face of danger. Cowboys respect others, defend those who cannot defend themselves and hold their families dear. They are good stewards of the land and all its creatures, possess a strong work ethic, and are loyal to their country. The Cowboy lives his or her life in a way most cannot help but admire. In my State, you do not have to go to the movie theater or a rodeo to see a cowboy. You see them every day on the street, in the grocery store, or driving into town from their ranches. Many of the Wyoming cowboys you see today are decedents of the cowboys that braved the frontier before Wyoming was a State. Like those before them, these folks still enjoy Wyoming's open spaces, know the satisfying feeling at the end of a good, hard day at work, and appreciate a smile or tip of the hat from a friendly neighbor. These westerners feel at home in Wyoming because they know it was, is and always will be cowboy country. I know my State would not be the same without the contributions of cowboys, past and present, and I am sure many of my colleagues feel the same way. It is time for the American Cowboy to be recognized.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as I listen to the arguments coming from the other side this week, I think it is important that we clear up a few misconceptions. A couple of common themes are being emphasized with which I fundamentally disagree. First of all, it is being alleged that the Federal Government is ``cutting'' spending. In fact, we are not ``cutting'' anything. Defense spending under this budget would rise by 4.3 percent over last year. Other discretionary spending would also rise. Mandatory spending will similarly increase--in some cases substantially. Medicare, for example, is slated to rise by 12.7 percent. So to say we are ``decreasing'' funding is just not true. The savings to which we refer result from slowing projected increases in spending. We should not assume that just because we go from one year to the next we should automatically be increasing all of our current obligations. Secondly, it is alleged that we are ``cutting'' programs. In fact, what we are talking about here are overall budget numbers. Nothing about this resolution allocates specific dollars to specific programs. While it is true that the President's budget has made recommendations to cease Federal funding of certain programs, allocation of the final budget number is the job of the appropriators. In addition, the majority of the programs about which I have heard complaint are areas properly left to State authority and are not within the powers enumerated to the Federal Government. For example, of course education is a priority. But specifics of education and available programs are not within the purview of the Federal Government. They are properly left to the States. That said, under this President and this Congress, overall investment in elementary and secondary education exceeds $500 billion annually, surpassing spending on national defense and exceeding per-pupil education spending of every other country except Switzerland. Finally, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric about ``tax cuts for the rich.'' I would first point out that many of these ``rich'' are small business owners who are trying to make capital investments and meet payroll. Secondly, we must all remember that money belongs first to those who earn it, and taxes are the share an individual's earnings that is paid to support the Government. The money isn't ours first. It is theirs. Limiting Government to its essential purposes and allowing people to keep more of their own money is something we all should strive to accomplish. The burden of government has grown entirely too large and way beyond what our Founders intended. These same people who rail about deficit increases ``resulting from tax cuts for the rich'' are not advocating fiscal restraint on the spending side. To the contrary, they consistently argue for bigger and bigger increases in Federal spending and more and more entitlement programs funded by the Federal Government. During last year's budget debate, many of these same Senators voted for $400 billion in additional spending. If we are to be serious about reducing the deficit, we cannot continue to spend at the current pace. Our largest entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--are already in deep financial trouble going forward into the near future. At some point, we have to hold the line.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2005''. It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system. The Congress has been debating how to update the antiquated statutory and regulatory framework governing the electric industry for over eight years. We repeatedly have tried and failed to enact legislation that would provide the right economic signals and regulatory certainty necessary for industry and wholesale market modernization. The loser in all of this has been the consumer, who has been denied the full benefits that access provides to fairly priced, reliable supplies of power. I have come to the conclusion that if we are to legislate successfully, we will have to pare down our wish list to the bare essentials plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on and ensure that customers pay no more for their power than is fair and necessary. It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules. Under present federal law FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system. As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western states and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles. My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission service at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements. It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by the Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and state commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies. Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA. Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council. NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the break-up of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules. My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A North America-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; State public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was agreed upon in the last Congress by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill. During the last energy debate, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation by certain entities through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to initiate discussion on this very important topic if in fact regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry. My legislation will provide more information on prices of electricity and transmission availability, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint. In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that this legislation will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in more dependable and affordable electricity for all consumers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2005''. It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system. The Congress has been debating how to update the antiquated statutory and regulatory framework governing the electric industry for over eight years. We repeatedly have tried and failed to enact legislation that would provide the right economic signals and regulatory certainty necessary for industry and wholesale market modernization. The loser in all of this has been the consumer, who has been denied the full benefits that access provides to fairly priced, reliable supplies of power. I have come to the conclusion that if we are to legislate successfully, we will have to pare down our wish list to the bare essentials plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on and ensure that customers pay no more for their power than is fair and necessary. It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules. Under present federal law FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system. As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western states and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles. My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission service at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements. It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by the Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and state commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies. Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA. Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council. NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the break-up of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules. My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A North America-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; State public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was agreed upon in the last Congress by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill. During the last energy debate, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation by certain entities through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to initiate discussion on this very important topic if in fact regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry. My legislation will provide more information on prices of electricity and transmission availability, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint. In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that this legislation will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in more dependable and affordable electricity for all consumers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and memory of a great singer/songwriter, rodeo champion and true cowboy, Chris LeDoux. Sadly, Chris passed away on March 9 at the age of 56 in Casper, WY. Chris was a loyal son, devoted husband and loving father. As a member of an air force family, Chris lived in many places throughout his childhood. He finally found his home in Wyoming while a sophomore in high school. In 1972, he married his lovely wife Peggy in Kaycee, WY, where he eventually built his ranch and fathered five wonderful children. Chris was a cowboy through and through. He began riding in junior rodeos when he was only 13. He tried his hand at several rodeo events, but before too long, it became apparent he was best on bareback broncs. After winning the Wyoming State High School Bareback Riding Championship and the National Intercollegiate Bareback Riding Championship, he joined the rodeo circuit full time. This choice brought many injuries and tough days on the road, but all his hard work paid off in December of 1976 when he won the world championship title for bareback bronc riding at the National Rodeo Finals in Oklahoma City. While on the rodeo circuit, Chris wrote songs about cowboys and the rodeo life he was leading. His songs were filled with both his love of music and his love of the West. In past interviews, Chris expressed that next to family, freedom was his most valued asset. Just as he cherished the freedom of his western life, Chris was adamant about his musical freedom. He was determined to produce music in his own way rather than be ``owned by a big company.'' By 1989, Chris had released 22 albums, mostly cassette tapes produced by his parents that he sold at concerts and rodeos. That same year, Garth Brooks had a hit with, ``Much Too Young,'' which included a line about ``a worn-out tape of Chris LeDoux.'' Chris soon became the country star he was always meant to be. Chris LeDoux was not only a world class entertainer, he was a friend. My wife Susan fondly recalls his great love for his family and his warm smile. He will be greatly missed by his family, friends and his loyal fans.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Savings Account Vehicle Enhancement, or ``SAVE,'' initiative, comprised of three separate bills to create, respectively, Lifetime Savings Accounts, Retirement Savings Accounts, and Employer Retirement Savings Accounts. Much attention has been focused lately on the retirement security of Americans, but the focus thus far has centered primarily on Social Security. It is imperative that we remember that Social Security was never intended as a primary income source for retirees, but rather as a safety net and a supplement to private savings. The bills I introduce today focus on private savings, for both pre-retirement expenses and retirement security. My reasons for introducing these bills are threefold. First of all, it is important that we address the appallingly-low personal savings rate in this country. Personal savings rates in the United States since 1960 have reached a new low at less than 2 percent. These bills will encourage additional savings and reduce the temptation for individuals to tap into retirement savings for other, pre-retirement purposes. Secondly, our tax code is entirely too complex and contributes to lack of participation in the tax-preferred vehicles that already exist. These bills, by allowing individuals to accumulate tax-free interest and by streamlining current savings vehicles, represent an important step toward fundamental tax reform. Finally, as the Social Security system strains under increasing pressure, it is even more important that we provide a better, more responsive, simpler system for Americans to accumulate personal savings for retirement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Savings Account Vehicle Enhancement, or ``SAVE,'' initiative, comprised of three separate bills to create, respectively, Lifetime Savings Accounts, Retirement Savings Accounts, and Employer Retirement Savings Accounts. Much attention has been focused lately on the retirement security of Americans, but the focus thus far has centered primarily on Social Security. It is imperative that we remember that Social Security was never intended as a primary income source for retirees, but rather as a safety net and a supplement to private savings. The bills I introduce today focus on private savings, for both pre-retirement expenses and retirement security. My reasons for introducing these bills are threefold. First of all, it is important that we address the appallingly-low personal savings rate in this country. Personal savings rates in the United States since 1960 have reached a new low at less than 2 percent. These bills will encourage additional savings and reduce the temptation for individuals to tap into retirement savings for other, pre-retirement purposes. Secondly, our tax code is entirely too complex and contributes to lack of participation in the tax-preferred vehicles that already exist. These bills, by allowing individuals to accumulate tax-free interest and by streamlining current savings vehicles, represent an important step toward fundamental tax reform. Finally, as the Social Security system strains under increasing pressure, it is even more important that we provide a better, more responsive, simpler system for Americans to accumulate personal savings for retirement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 15, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 175, a bill to establish the Bleeding Kansas and Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; S. 322, a bill to establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership in the States of Vermont and New York, and for other purposes; S. 323, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State of Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes, and S. 429, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Brian Carlstrom at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have had a good discussion. I am glad we have. There are a number of parts to it, of course. We have talked a lot about the safety issue, which is key, and to be confident in the things that we have asked Canada to do. We had a hearing with the Secretary some time back. He had his scientists there with him, and they were not certain they had done all the things that they might do. But I think the key is the matter of opening the markets for us. Our markets for beef have grown in the last number of years. It has been one of the most important things that we have had to export. Most of that growth has been in the Pacific Rim--Asia, Japan, Korea. Of course, now that is closed. Regardless of what you say about how well the Canadians have done, that market is still closed, and it is closed because of Canadian activity or lack of it. That is really the key that we have to look forward to. I am certainly for trade. As a matter of fact, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Finance Committee. We need to do that. But I am reluctant to see us open this one until we have some arrangement to open Canada and Korea. You say: Well, this is unfair to Canada. Nevertheless, that is where the problems all came from. That is where the cows came from, the mad cow disease, not the U.S. They came from Canada, and the difficulty has arisen there. So I guess I just simply want to emphasize that we can talk all we want to, as my friend from Colorado has, about what has been done there. The fact is, we still haven't got our market back. We had good exports. We don't have them now. I am not as concerned about the processors being able to move up to Canada. The cows are here, actually, and that is where they are going to be. So I won't take more time because I know there are many others who need and want to talk. I hope we can keep in mind that all we are asking is that we have more of an opportunity to deal with opening the markets in Japan, opening the markets in Korea, before we open the market in Canada.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will continue discussing the issue before the Senate, Social Security, which in the last several weeks has been talked about in Washington, DC, and throughout the country. Reactions have been interesting--many without much information about the alternatives, the needs. I suspect the most important thing we can do is to talk about the situation as it exists, the situation as it will exist if we do nothing, what the options are and what the impacts will be. It has become, right or wrong, the principal issue. I don't think anything will happen too quickly because there needs to be time taken to explore the issue, to get people to understand the issues. Everyone is meeting at home with their constituents. I met last weekend in Cheyenne, WY, with the AARP and exchanged some ideas. We have to continue that. In my view, the President has properly brought forth the issue. He has indicated, if we do not do something now it will be even more difficult to do it in the future years. I don't think anyone argues the idea that our prime purpose is to maintain Social Security so it fulfills what has been laid out for people in the future, so it does not affect those in retirement on Social Security or affect those closer to that age. It is naive to imagine a program put into place in the 1930s will go on for another 100 years without having some changes. Changes have taken place certainly in this country and will continue to take place. I am hopeful we can explore the situation, that we can become more familiar with the impact if we do nothing, become more familiar with potential problems that will exist, and then, of course, take a look at potential changes. It is important to understand what the administration and the President has laid out. As the President has said a number of times, he is willing to take a look at different solutions. That is where we are. We had a meeting in the Finance Committee yesterday and went over interesting ideas, primarily, the so-called trust fund that exists. You can predict what will happen in that in terms of the cashflow, in terms of the interest. Everyone does not recognize that when the Social Security moneys come in they go into the Federal fund with all other incomes and then they are sent over with a bond to the trust fund and interest is earned on that trust fund from the Federal Government basic incomes. Those are bonds that come over and, of course, will, over time, like about 2009 when the income does not equal the outgo, these trust funds will have to be turned into cash so they can then be used to pay benefits. My goals are to protect the promised benefits to retirees and potential retirees, to create a system for future generations, so the benefits of financial security that have been enjoyed by others will continue to be enjoyed for our kids as time goes by. I believe strongly in the idea of incentives for people to create their own retirement program. Social Security was designed to be a supplement. I am hopeful--whether it is in the Social Security Program or whether it is outside of that program--that we continue to provide incentives for people to put aside their own money for retirement. Of course, in order to make that successful, the earlier you start putting aside some money, the more likely you are to have some when you need it later. That is one of the issues before the Congress, whether the personal accounts should be made part of Social Security so there would be an opportunity for the kind of growth that can take place in the private sector. However, those are two different issues. They are both very important. We can talk about them both, some of the things that need to be done for the Social Security Program as it exists and some of the things that can be done in the area of personal accounts. There are difficult choices to be made. Obviously, some talk about increasing the payroll taxes. I don't think anyone is enthusiastic about that idea. There are ideas of going over the limits that are now there for the people who pay into, over a certain amount. That could be increased, I suppose. That is one of the options. The idea of doing something about benefits, of course, is also an option. I do not know quite what specifically could be done, but I suppose there is talk about having benefits somewhat tied to the person's own resources and providing more benefits to people who have less resources than those who have more. That is a possibility. I mentioned increasing the cap on the wages taxed. That has been talked about. Now the limit is $90,000. Some say it might be able to go above that. There certainly are opportunities to talk about raising the age limit. One of the things that has changed so much, of course, is the fact that when the Social Security Program started, there were maybe as many as 20-some people working for every person drawing benefits. Now that has changed dramatically. It is my understanding that now there are about three working people for every person drawing benefits. So that is quite a different situation. At the start of Social Security I think life expectancy was probably in the lower sixties. If you retired at age 65, quite a number of people did not enjoy the benefits of Social Security. Now, fortunately, life expectancy is much longer than that. So some have talked about perhaps over time raising the age for retirement. There will be other options, of course, as to how these things might be done. I guess my real strong feeling is, No. 1, we have to do something because the system cannot go on as it has. No. 2, we ought to get as knowledgeable as we possibly can--all of us--about what the impacts are, what the situation is, what the alternatives are that could be used. I think another idea is that it does not need to be done next week. This is something we can work on for a while. I do not mean 5 years, but maybe towards the end of the year we would be in a better position to do something. But the changes are not an option. We have to do some of those kinds of things, and we have to do them fairly quickly. I was a little disappointed that, as this issue came out, we found some kind of immediate reaction: We are not going to do anything with that; We don't want to touch it. Well, that is not an option, in our view. I suppose you could argue about critical timing, but it is very clear the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to find solutions, and the more impact those solutions will have on what we are talking about. Another idea, of course, is that we ought to look at other ways to do it. As a matter of fact, we have some bills, and the administration is looking at doing some things to encourage more tax-free investments for people's retirement years. I think that is one of the great ideas. There are two ways to do that, of course. No. 1, you can allow those moneys to go into an account before taxes, or the alternative is to go ahead and pay taxes on it now, and when it comes out, there would be no taxes on it. For people who are in their retirement years, to be able to take their money out without taxing it is probably one of the most attractive alternatives. I have been working with the administration, and we intend to have a bill soon that will make it a little simpler. We have quite a number of different kinds of retirement programs now, and they are a little difficult to keep up with, and a little confusing, so we will soon, hopefully, make those a little bit different. I am very pleased the President has undertaken this effort and has spent a good deal of time on it. He has basically handed the Congress a blueprint. Some are saying: Well, where is the plan? I think it is good the President has laid out the problem, laid out some of the alternatives, but has, in fact, said--and our committee met with him some time ago in the White House, and he indicated that, no, he is not sending out a specific proposal but is giving us ideas and a broader concept of where he would like to see us go. So looking to the future, for all of us, as citizens--for the country, for ourselves--is something we must do. Mr. President, I see my friend from Pennsylvania in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Are we in Republican time at this time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to hear that we may bring this debate to a conclusion shortly. Certainly it seems to me we have had plenty of time to talk about it. We have heard the same things over and over. Of course, everyone has a perfect right to have a different point of view, and I understand that. They also have a right to share that point of view. However, there does come a time when we ought to come to the snubbing post and vote, and I hope that can happen soon. I come to the floor to express my support for the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. It occurs to me the President should have the right and does have the right and the responsibility to surround himself with people with whom he can work the best, people who reflect his point of view. After all, we are talking about a manager surrounding himself with people who will carry out his programs. Obviously, he is going to have people who fit that order. If something is found that is disingenuous or disagreeable about the nominee, of course, it is legitimate to talk about that. I do think it is interesting, however, that people from the other side of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee have gotten up and talked about all these difficult issues on the memos. The fact is, the same committee members on this side of the aisle have not mentioned that at all. One has to think if there is a little bit of politics here. That would not be a brand new idea, of course. It is time to go forward. Certainly lots of people have had lots of good things to say about Judge Gonzales. They talked about his legal career, which is very impressive. He entered Harvard Law School. That is a good thing. He certainly has had military service, which does not have any direct involvement with this job, but it is something he should be recognized for having done. He served in Texas as the secretary of state. He was a distinguished jurist in Texas, and the people from Texas from whom we hear are all very complimentary of what has happened there with respect to Judge Gonzales. We ought to consider those comments from people such as Senator Cornyn who worked with him in the same government in Texas and who has nothing but good things to say. Certainly no one has suggested that this jurist is one who is an activist judge who is seeking to make law as opposed to interpret it. That is one of the questions we have had, of course, in this whole series of debates, but it does not seem to be part of this one. Judge Gonzales has been complimented for issuing his opinions based on the facts, on interpretation of the law rather than his personal interests which, of course, is one of the keys to a successful judgeship. As I say, it is perfectly legitimate for people to have a different point of view. However, there is a limit to how long we need to keep talking about it. We have been here all week. I hope now most of us can come to the decision that it is time to move on. I frankly do not know the judge. I have not worked with him, as many people have. But I was impressed listening to those who have, particularly about his Texas experience. He certainly seems to have worked on cases diligently and has done a great job. He has not been influenced outside the courtroom. Those are excellent qualifications for someone in this job. Certainly, there has also been the opportunity to serve with the President as White House Counsel. It is a very important job that has given him experience in Federal Government so he can move right into this position. He remained steadily at the helm, despite the tough times we had during 9/11 and following in terms of terrorism in which this Department and these judges and attorneys had the real challenge of what to do to deal with terrorism. He was instrumental in coordinating the law enforcement efforts post-9/11 and ensuring the rights of Americans at the same time. It is interesting to have reports on what Mr. Gonzales has done with homeland security consistent with the Constitution and the laws. He demonstrated independence as Counsel at the White House, resisting from time to time the Department of Justice. The transition from where he is as White House Counsel to the Justice Department will be a relatively easy one. The Justice Department is very interesting. A very good friend of mine has been Assistant Attorney General for Public Lands, a gentleman who at one time was, in fact, my staff director. He has about 700 people who work for him. It is a tough job and one that does require a background and knowledge. As I read it--I am not on the committee of jurisdiction but those who are from this side have said he demonstrated a will to honor and uphold the Constitution, which, of course, all of us need to do. He is independent enough to make decisions that have to be done independently, and that is excellent. Again, we will have differences of view. That is all right. We have differences of view on almost everything. It is time to draw the line. It is time to go. It is time to get this job done. I certainly urge support for Judge Gonzales and hope we can go forward and give him an opportunity and then give us an opportunity to move forward with what we ought to be doing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.